Page:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 4.djvu/109

 io-s. iv. JULY 29,1905.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 85 Then He says to His Mother, "Oh! the withy, oh ! the withy, The bitter withy that causes me to smart, to smart, Oh ! the withy, it shall he the very first tree That perishea at the heart." The first part of the story is well known in the carol commonly called 'The Holy Well'; but the whole story seems to have become nearly obsolete. 'N. & Q.,' 3"1 S. iii. 334, gives a note concerning a fresco in the church of San Martino at Lucca, in Italy, which represents the Virgin Mary chastising the youthful Jesus. Is this the same legend ? Suggestions as to the meaning of the first lines of stanzas iii. and vii. would be gratefully received. " Jerdins" may be a corruption of the " virgins " in ' The Holy Well.' I hope other versions may turn up, and I should be glad to hear of any suggested origin for the story. I have not yet seen any other carol or legend resembling it. F. SIDGWICK. 5, Clement's Inn, W.C. A NEW LIGHT ON THE DOUGLAS CAUSE. IN Horace Walpole's ' Memoirs of the Reign of King George III.' there occurs this cele- brated but cryptic passage in reference to the famous lawsuit: "At last the principal evidence for the Douglas was convicted of perjury in another cause in France " (v. G. F. Russell Barker's edition, Lawrence & Bullen. 1894, vol. iii. p. 206). To this statement Sir Denis Le Marchant, under whose editorship these ' Memoirs' were first published in 1845, appends the following note:— " Without examining the records of France this {act cannot safely be altogether denied ; but after many inquiries, both among Scotch and English lawyers, the authenticity of it seems to rest with Walpole alone. Had it happened before Mr. Stuart's 1 Letters' were published in 1773, of course he would never have omitted so important a fact; but neither in his letters, nor in a French account of the Douglas cause published in 178<i, nor in any other publication that has fallen in the editor's way, is there the least notice of any such thing: besides this nobody re- members even to have heard of it; and it is not a story likely to be forgotten, had it ever been men- tioned." It is remarkable that Le Marchant, and others who have written upon the same sub- ject, should overlook such a well-known work as John Taylor's ' llecords of my Life' (2 vols. London, Edward Bull, 1832), where, in vol. ii. pp. 224-5, is a paragraph which appears to corroborate Walpole's assertion. Taylor says: " I may properly introduce a manuscript note which was given to me by the late Rev. Richard Penneck. He had lent me Mr. Andrew Stewart's- letters, and lie gave me this note as corroborative of Mr. Stewart's facts and reasonings. This note, which I copy from Mr. Penneck's handwriting, is as- follows:— '"The reader, it is presumed, cannot be sur- prised, perhaps he may be pleased, at being informed that Monsieur Meuager, whom he will tind so often mentioned in these letters as an accoucheur, has been sent to the galleys for life, for being concerned in a fraudulent business, similar to the affair in question. This is an unquestionable fact.' Mr. Penneck adds, 'This note was found by a worthy friend in the frontispiece of the work (in MS.) in liis possession.'" Since Horace Walpole's 'Memoirs of the- Reign of George III.' were not given to the world until 1845, it is obvious that Taylor, whose reminiscences were published thirteen years previously, can owe no inspiration to the book of his predecessor. Thus his state- ment with regard to the accoucheur Menager is worthy of careful investigation. No doubt some of your readers who niay have had occasion to study the criminal records of France (as Mr. H. B. Irving has done recently) will be able to direct the research. It is only a few weeks since Mr. Percy Fitzgerald, who has dared to say what many others must long have thought, published his book ' Lady Jean : the Komance of the Great Douglas Cause,' and more than others he will be able to appreciate the significance of the perjury of Menager. In the ' Lives of the Chancellors' Lord Campbell expresses surprise that Andrew Stuart should have addressed his famous ' Letters' (published in January, 1773) to Lord Mansfield without paying any atten- tion to Lord Camden, who handled him far more severely when delivering his opinion on the Douglas Cause in the House of Lords. Others have surmised that Stuart singled out Mansfield as a fitting object for attack because, unlike the ex-Chancellor, he was highly unpopular. A reference to the ' Cald- well Papers,' printed for the Maitlaud Club (part ii. vol. ii. p. 184), will give a satisfactory explanation of the mystery. It appears that on Tuesday, 19 March, 1771, Lord Camden and Andrew Stuart, through the intervention of their mutual friend Lord Stair, had an interview at the house of the former, when the great lawyer offered a full and generous apology to the agent of the Hamiltons, and withdrew the aspersions he had made upon his character. Some time previously, on 9 March, 1769, Thurlow also made his amends in handsome terms, in a letter addressed to Andrew Stuart's brother (v. 'Caldwell Papers,' part ii. vol. ii. p. 152). Thus the Lord Chief Justice was the only